6
$\begingroup$

Some of you might remember Alecos asking some of the moderator candidates about changing the subtitle for our SE, per this thread from a year ago.

I'm down to try and gain a new consensus on the old proposal and submit a new header for our site. Our current blurb is:

"For professional and academic economists and analysts"

But perhaps given the scope of the site we cover, should we direct our tagline towards a broader audience?

Please feel free to offer suggestions for changing our subtitle below if you wish and upvote whichever ones you find appropriate. I will put an answer below that also suggests not changing the subtitle.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the relevance of that subtitle? Is it only used in the beta site (which probably no one ever visits)? $\endgroup$ – luchonacho Sep 11 '17 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's helpful to look at the taglines used by other SE sites (click on the drop-down arrow to the right of Stack Exchange in the top left of the screen and scroll down). Some points I noted are: a) All sites indicate their topic in the tagline as well as in the site name; b) Longer taglines seem to be acceptable, see eg Artificial Intelligence SE; c) Some taglines seem designed to discourage low-level questions, words used including "serious" (Chess SE), "finer points" (French Language SE), but none do so with menace, however gentle. $\endgroup$ – Adam Bailey Sep 11 '17 at 17:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please dear moderators, conclude on this matter and act according to the decision you will reach, whatever it will be. $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Oct 12 '17 at 12:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlecosPapadopoulos I am in favor of changing the blurb to yours. Unless the other mods seriously object, I'll pass the news along to the admins. $\endgroup$ – Kitsune Cavalry Oct 14 '17 at 2:46
  • $\begingroup$ I've changed the site description to "Q&A for those who study, teach, research and apply economics and econometrics" as proposed in this answer. This is cached in a few places, so it might not be immediately updated. I do see it's correct in the site switcher, however. $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Dec 7 '17 at 0:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonEricson Thank you very much! Let us see how it pans out then. I know it has been a long wait Alecos, but it is here. $\endgroup$ – Kitsune Cavalry Dec 7 '17 at 1:34
7
$\begingroup$

The sub-title that I proposed has received 15 upvotes (and no downvotes) in the original thread. Don't these count towards a decision? Why a "new consensus" is needed? Because it has been 10 months from the previous one? Then the question becomes "why the proposal has not been implemented months ago given its high rate of approval?"

I understand Ubiquitous' position as laid out in his comment ("who we would like to be and not who we are"), and certainly, a moderator's opinion (supported by the position of a valuable member since it encompasses denesp's fears), should carry some extra weight... but given the usual up-vote level here, 15 upvotes should also carry some extra weight.

To me, keeping the current subtitle, at best provides the opportunity to a newcomer for a dismissing smile after having a look at the questions posted, and comparing them with the subtitle.

Let's accept what we have accomplished here, while also continue to try for what we haven't yet.

We will be attracting parasitic questions no matter what our subtitle/message is. The goal of my proposal is to convey the message "everybody is welcome -in principle" -the burden of safeguarding the identity and the quality of this forum rests in any case on the diligence of its members.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The passage of time is the main reason why I just wanted to reconfirm that changes to the blurb would still be welcome. It is not meant as a sleight against you or your proposal. I think your point that however we phrase our blurb, we can still police the low level questions and have our independent guidelines is valid. After all, I've made it clear I have a soft spot for the laymen and the undergrads. $\endgroup$ – Kitsune Cavalry Sep 11 '17 at 2:24
  • $\begingroup$ Also, feel free to edit the answer with your blurb in it if you want to talk a little more about it. $\endgroup$ – Kitsune Cavalry Sep 11 '17 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Alecos. My comment should not carry extra weight: it's just my opinion as a member of the community. FWIW, the fact that your proposal wasn't implemented before is because I (somehow) never saw the meta post, not because I wanted to block it by stealth. The community's wishes should absolutely be respected. $\endgroup$ – Ubiquitous Sep 11 '17 at 17:54
1
$\begingroup$

The blurb Alecos suggested:

"For those who study, teach, research, and apply economics and econometrics."

is one possible change we can make to it. I considered replacing "those" with "students and professionals to be more explicit about who is available here, but I now think it is unnecessary.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I worry that the word study would reinforce the general false impression that we solve homework problems. I voted -1 because perhaps the blurb may perhaps be changed for the better but I am against this particular change. $\endgroup$ – Giskard Sep 9 '17 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ (Negative voting is also a great way to deprive evil moderators representing The Establishment of meta badges!) $\endgroup$ – Giskard Sep 9 '17 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ xd Fair enough, and of course you are free to suggest your own blurb, even if it seems close to the existing ones. $\endgroup$ – Kitsune Cavalry Sep 9 '17 at 17:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a good suggestion to the extent that it better reflects the current usage of the site. But I am reluctant to endorse it because I think many of the most active members of the community (myself included) would like to see a shift towards fewer ECON101-level questions, and fewer questions from laymen who obviously never bothered to open a book or use Google. If this reading of the community is correct then I would argue for a tagline that reflects what we aspire to be. $\endgroup$ – Ubiquitous Sep 9 '17 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ Would a proposal that incorporates the idea of "advanced students" or maybe "graduate students" be more appealing to you @Ubiquitous ? $\endgroup$ – Kitsune Cavalry Sep 9 '17 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ @KitsuneCavalry maybe, but then those guys will probably already recognise themselves as "academic economists". $\endgroup$ – Ubiquitous Sep 10 '17 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KitsuneCavalry Just saw that the subtitle has changed. I don't know how long it has been up there, but thanks for taking action and fulfilling a campaign promise! $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Dec 14 '17 at 20:44
1
$\begingroup$

Vote on whether you agree or disagree with the following: I prefer not changing the blurb to any of the other options and would prefer to keep it the same.

You are free to wait to vote on this one until you see more options available.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Based on Alecos's answer I propose the new blurb

"Primarily for professionals and academics, but everyone is welcome - in principle."

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Something similar incorporating "but there are no free lunches" might also work. $\endgroup$ – Giskard Sep 11 '17 at 16:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (+1) That was fun, I like the gentle menace underneath. I propose to truncate it to "Primarily for professionals and academics, but everyone is welcome -in principle". After all, it is written below "Economics.se". so the words "economists and analysts" in this approach seems redundant. $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Sep 11 '17 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ Too optimistic, and perhaps misleading, as the proportion of actual professionals and academics is, in my view, quite low (census anyone?). I think the profession's mentality/ethos does not fit in this forum. $\endgroup$ – luchonacho Sep 11 '17 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ " I think the profession's mentality/ethos does not fit in this forum." I really do not know what you mean by this. That we should not be elitists? $\endgroup$ – Giskard Sep 11 '17 at 21:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .